CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Umstot v. Umstot

Edward Shirer Umstot (Husband) appealed a trial court's divorce order, challenging the awards of divorce, alimony in solido, and child support to Mary Ann Umstot (Wife). The appellate court reviewed five issues: alimony in solido for a marital residence interest, attorney's fees, classification of increased retirement plan value, deviation from child support guidelines for educational expenses, and the sole award of divorce to Wife. The court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding retirement benefits and child support for educational expenses. However, it reversed the award of attorney's fees as alimony and modified the alimony in solido related to the marital residence, requiring Wife to reimburse Husband $30,000 for his equity, with the payment method to be determined on remand.

DivorceAlimony In SolidoChild SupportMarital Property DivisionRetirement BenefitsSeparate PropertyAttorney's FeesExtraordinary Educational ExpensesInappropriate Marital ConductEquitable Division
References
12
Case No. E2010-01255-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

Carol Denice Pettijohn v. Patrick Carl Pettijohn

This is an appeal from a divorce case where the Husband challenged the trial court's division of marital property and alimony awards. The Wife, who was economically disadvantaged and had health issues, was granted alimony in solido (Husband's share of the marital home) and alimony in futuro. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the property division equitable and the alimony awards appropriate given the parties' economic circumstances, health, and contributions to the marriage, consistent with relevant Tennessee statutes and case law.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAlimony in FuturoEconomic DisadvantageEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionHealth ConditionsChild Support
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jan S. v. Leonard S.

This case concerns an ex-wife's motion for an upward modification of her $100 weekly lifetime alimony, established in a 1974 divorce decree, from her wealthy ex-husband. Despite suffering from mental illness, poverty, and homelessness, a Special Referee recommended denying her request. The court, presided over by Justice Matthew F. Cooper, confirmed the Referee's report, finding no substantial or unforeseen change in circumstances. The court ruled that her status as a "public charge" and the effects of inflation were not new developments justifying an increase, emphasizing that the ex-husband is not solely responsible for her continued difficulties. The ex-wife's motion for increased alimony and attorney's fees was denied, with the original alimony amount maintained.

DivorceAlimonySpousal SupportUpward ModificationChange in CircumstancesSpecial Referee ReportPublic ChargeMental IllnessHomelessnessInflation
References
27
Case No. W2017-01556-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2019

Sallie Lunn Tarver v. John Taylor Tarver

This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding involving Sallie Lunn Tarver (Wife) and John Kirk Tarver (Husband), with Husband's father, John Taylor Tarver (Grandfather), also named due to jointly held assets. The trial court determined Husband's one-half interest in the Shelby Drive property was marital property, acquired as an incentive for his return to work, and ordered its equitable division. The court imputed income to both spouses for alimony and child support, awarding Wife alimony in solido, alimony in futuro, and child support, plus a portion of her attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings on property classification, valuation, income imputation, and alimony, and denied both parties' requests for appellate attorney's fees.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionAlimonyChild SupportImputed IncomeJoint TenancySeparate PropertyProperty ValuationAttorney's Fees
References
61
Case No. M2022-01299-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2023

Andrew Francis Tittle v. Deidre Lyn Deyoung Tittle

This is a divorce action in which the trial court awarded the wife a divorce based on the husband’s inappropriate marital conduct, divided the marital estate and awarded the wife, inter alia, child support as well as transitional alimony of $2,000 per month for four years, followed by $1,500 per month for two years, then $1,000 per month for two years, and $500 per month for two years. The court also awarded the wife alimony in solido of $50,000 as necessary spousal support and an additional $75,000 to defray the cost of most of her attorney’s fees. The husband appeals. We have determined that the record contains an inconsistency concerning the amount of the work-related childcare expenses the husband is required to pay, and it appears that the trial court failed to consider the husband’s obligation to pay work-related childcare costs in setting transitional alimony at $2,000 per month during the first four years, which additional expense appears to impair the husband’s ability to pay that amount. Accordingly, we vacate the award of child support and that portion of the transitional alimony award and remand these issues for reconsideration, taking into account, inter alia, the allocation of childcare expenses, the wife’s need, and the husband’s ability to pay. We affirm the trial court in all other respects. Both parties seek to recover the attorney’s fees and costs each incurred in this appeal. Exercising our discretion, we deny both requests.

DivorceAlimonyChild SupportMarital MisconductCredibility AssessmentFinancial DuplicityAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionChildcare ExpensesSpousal Support
References
26
Case No. M2016-01807-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2018

Cynthia M. Kanka v. Christopher Kanka

This appeal arises from a judgment of divorce and an award of damages in tort. The trial court granted Cynthia Kanka an absolute divorce from Christopher Kanka, full custody of their minor child, and set child support based on Christopher's earning capacity, finding him willfully and voluntarily underemployed. The court also divided marital property and awarded Cynthia alimony in futuro and alimony in solido (attorney's fees). Additionally, the court granted Cynthia a judgment for compensatory damages on her tort claim (assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress), which included counseling costs and pain and suffering for herself and her daughter. On appeal, Christopher challenged the underemployment determination, marital residence valuation, alimony awards, and the tort damages. The Court of Appeals vacated the award of damages to Cynthia for her child's pain and suffering, but affirmed all other aspects of the trial court's decision.

Divorce LawChild SupportAlimonySpousal SupportTort ClaimsDomestic ViolenceUnderemploymentMarital PropertyAppellate ReviewEarning Capacity
References
34
Case No. M2001-02182-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2003

Dawn Larsen Niceley v. James Jacob Niceley, IV

After a sixteen-year marriage, Husband and Wife both filed for divorce. The trial court established a parenting plan, valued and divided marital property, and awarded Wife attorney’s fees as alimony in solido. On appeal, the Court affirmed the parenting plan and the distribution of marital property. However, the appellate court reversed the award of attorney’s fees, finding that the trial court's rationale was based solely on Husband's fault and not on Wife's demonstrated economic disadvantage or need, which is a primary factor for alimony awards.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting PlanMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAttorney's FeesEconomic DisadvantageMarital FaultAppellate ReviewTennessee Family Law
References
70
Case No. M1999-00714-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2000

Fillmore v. Fillmore

This appeal arises from a dispute between Appellant Stephen Douglas Fillmore and Appellee Karen Leigh Fillmore regarding the terms of their divorce. Mr. Fillmore argued that the trial court erred in its valuation of certain marital property, improperly awarded alimony in solido, and failed to include a pre-marital debt as marital debt. Additionally, he contended that his child support obligation was improperly calculated based on his current income. The Court of Appeals for Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the ruling of the trial court on all issues. The court upheld the valuation of Fillmore Construction, Inc., the alimony award for student loans, the classification of the pre-marital debt as separate, and the child support determination.

DivorceMarital PropertyAlimony in SolidoChild SupportSeparate DebtBusiness ValuationEarning CapacitySpousal SupportMarital AssetsPre-marital Debt
References
18
Case No. 02A01-9709-CV-00231
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1998

Sarah Wilkerson v. Robert Wilkerson

This is a divorce case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the distribution of marital property. The trial court awarded the husband $25,000, representing 38.5% of the marital home's value, and the remainder of the marital property to the wife as alimony in solido, having considered the husband's fault. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in considering fault in the division of marital property and in failing to include all marital assets, such as both parties' automobiles and the husband's pension, in the marital estate. The court also determined that the presumption of equal marital property distribution was not overcome. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded with instructions for an equal, 50/50, division of marital property before addressing the issue of alimony.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAppellate ReviewFault in DivorceEquitable DistributionPension ValuationAutomobile ClassificationSpousal SupportTennessee Family Law
References
12
Case No. W2012-01983-COA-R3-CV; CT-002081-11
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Alexander A. Rogin v. Joelle L. Rogin

This appeal arises from a divorce case concerning various financial matters, child support, and parenting decisions. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's calculation of Mother's income due to insufficient findings and reversed the finding that Father was willfully underemployed. Consequently, the order for Father to pay private school tuition was also vacated. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on the permanent parenting plan, which granted Mother final decision-making authority, and upheld the division of marital property requiring Mother to pay the home equity line of credit. Additionally, the award of alimony in solido to Father, to repay children's educational trusts, was affirmed, while both parties' requests for transitional alimony and attorney fees were denied. The case is now remanded for a fresh determination of child support obligations and private school tuition.

Divorce LawChild Support CalculationIncome ImputationUnderemploymentAlimonyMarital Property DivisionParenting PlanDecision-Making AuthorityEducational ExpensesAttorney Fees
References
77
Showing 1-10 of 85 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational